In democratic societies media is the fact checker. That’s how it’s supposed to be.

Linking to related media resources makes total sense.

I agree. But twitter and facebook claim to be not be publishers but here they are acting as editors (part of publishing). They can’t be both. What do you feel about that?

I think Twitter would ordinarily just straight up ban users who post blatant untruths about elections.

That’s what they have done in the past and what is a direct reaction to what went down during the last US presidential election.

Since this is the President Twitter feels understandably uncomfortable with just banning that person, so the next best option is to provide context to what they said. Seems reasonable to me.

You can quibble about details, but the basic idea seems sound to me.

You can also quibble about inconsistent enforcement and what not, but as far as I know Twitter is just coming down extremely hard on election disinfo (for understandable reasons), so that’s why they are so on this (and not, say, harassment and hate speech – which to my mind is also a very big problem on Twitter and where I see many failings in Twitter’s insufficient reaction).

Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good. So often in these discussions people aim for perfection which in this messy reality is an impossibility. But saying “Well, perfection is impossible, so we will just do nothing.” or even “Well, there are complexities here, so we will just do nothing.” is just lazy cowardice. Or ideologically motivated.

Yes but those details are what has protected twitter until now. If you decide what goes on and not off your platform, then you are a publisher and responsible for what’s on your platform. The law says this.

I am interested in what you think about that, ignoring Trump for a second.

It seems obvious to me that you cannot have a general rule here that covers everything. There is not bright line separation possible, if only because doing that is fucking dangerous for societies.

In that context I’m totally fine with what Twitter did. However, maybe something that looks superficially similar (posting a link to some white supremacist website below a tweet of some politician) might not be.

I know that looks pretty similar but I think that those are the complexities our society has to deal with. Sometimes someone is just wrong and their wrongness is fucking dangerous to society and then it is ok to react.

No bright line, only complexities.

Again, i don’t disagree. I am asking how you would enforce something like that? Who gets to decide what’s wrong? I certainly hope it’s not Twitter.

My argument is Twitter is a private company. While private company should be able to control what happens with their platform, they have increasingly reached a size where they are public utilities. I believe an elected government (with its own biases) should decide what goes on a published platform than twitter. Because i have no way of questioning Twitter’s decisions. I can question the government and elect a new one. I can’t elect a new Jack Dorsey.

Twitter gets to decide that. And if there’s overreach and abuse the courts get to step in. Seems quite straightforward to me. I have no problem with giving Twitter – also if they are utility-like – some ability to behave all by themselves, though being able to let the courts check on them if need be.

This is the only part I guess we disagree on. I refuse to let a global entity that is not elected or representative of the world in any way be able to control this.

Every court’s jurisdiction only applies within that country.

What if an American court’s order goes against a European one?

What if Twitter moves to a different jurisdiction which has less oversight and buys out the courts? Not probable. But I wouldn’t want a utility to have so much power. Sorry.

I mean, their alternative is to just ban him under their ToS. Which is probably honestly what they should do (and seems a fairly likely outcome of this kerfuffle, if he keeps pushing).

What part of the CNN fact-check was incorrect? It's not listed in the original link.

I love that they started to fact check the president, but the very stupid choice to use CNN basically means that shot themselves in the foot...

It was a pure act of arrogance. They might have a plan, but they probably don't. A mistake like this will cost them.

Perhaps they did it to antagonize him. CNN is probably Trump's least favorite news outlet.

Besides, all news outlets post a bunch of BS under the cover of "analysis", "opinion", and "op-ed" pieces. Those are all carefully crafted to engage a target audience. NYT does it. WAPO does it. CNN. They are all running outrage factories just producing slightly different flavors..

> Perhaps they did it to antagonize him. CNN is probably Trump's least favorite news outlet.

That's the point, me thinks

It might have been smart to use someone other than CNN, but I'm not sure there's any fact checker in the world that Trump would have accepted correction from.

It's not Trump that matters in this context, by using a "fact" checker with a known anti-Trump bias they now have left themselves vulnerable to attacks from other people too who can and likely will form a coalition against them.

Known anti-trump bias as in "known" solely due to the presidents blustering in that direction?

Is there concrete evidence of bias? Being critical isn't the same thing